I would predict they'll do whatever fails mode they've done in the past, or do the failures which i barely catch myself from doing.
Are you sure that you don't first look at the behavior and then calculate an incentive map? (Which obviously will fit rather well since it is post hoc?) ((Because that's the failure mode most people fall into))(((and doesn't your last paragraph depict a thought process which is the exact opposite of Hanlons razor?)))
Are you sure that you don't first look at the behavior and then calculate an incentive map?
Well, both. Normally I estimate (and update) the model(s) in the middle of an interaction. Before I have no data and have to fall back on priors, and after I have no need for a model.
Are you saying there are, um, methodological problems with this approach?
doesn't your last paragraph depict a thought process which is the exact opposite of Hanlons razor?
Doesn't look like that to me. The opposite of Hanlon's Razor is "I don't understand her therefore she is ...
following on from:
http://lesswrong.com/lw/dr/generalizing_from_one_example/
I am quite sure in my experience that at some point between the ages of 10-15 I concluded that; "no the rest of the world does not think like me, I think in an unusual way".
This idea disagrees with the typical mind fallacy (where people outwardly generalise to think everyone else has similar minds to their own).
I suspect I started with a typical mind model of the world but at some point it broke badly enough that I re-modelled on "I just think differently to most others".
I wanted to start a new discussion; rather than continuing on from one in 2009;
Where do your experiences lie in relation to typical minds?